UK Offence Report

Amendment to the Products of Animal Origin (Disease Control) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008

regulation 14 of The Products of Animal Origin (Disease Control) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

14 For Regulation 25 (Offences) substitute—

25 A person is guilty of an offence if that person—

a without reasonable cause, that person contravenes these Regulations;

b intentionally obstructs any person enforcing these Regulations;

c intentionally provides false or misleading information to any person enforcing these Regulations; or

d intentionally fails to provide

a record when required to do so by any person enforcing these Regulations.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
obstructing an official exercising a power
Fault element
Requires proof of a state of mind
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove both that the conduct happened and that it was done with the state of mind the provision names (intentionally).

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: mens rea word in the offence-creating words: intentionally.

What would breach regulation 14?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. Refusing to let an inspector onto premises they are entitled to enter under the Products of Animal Origin (Disease Control) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009.
  2. Sending an official away, or telling staff to say nothing, where the power being exercised does not depend on anyone's consent.
  3. Physically blocking an examination, or removing something an officer has said they intend to inspect.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
10 June 2009
In force from
1 July 2009
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations amend the Products of Animal Origin (Disease Control) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S.R. 2008 No. 431) (‘the 2008 regulations’) to implement requirements in section 4(d) of Annex II of Council Directive 92/119/EEC in respect of any meat from pigs with antibodies against swine vesicular disease in which disease has not been confirmed but which the Department has required to be slaughtered. Those pigs may only be slaughtered in a designated slaughterhouse and they must, whilst there, be kept separate from other pigs (regulation 6). The meat from the seropositive pigs cannot be exported (regulation 10(a)). This is ensured by marking and record keeping requirements in respect of the meat (regulations 8 and 11 respectively). These Regulations also amend the 2008 Regulations in respect of restricted meat from restricted poultry intended for supply on the domestic market to: a Remove the requirement on a supplier of such poultry meat to know, in order to avoid the supply prohibition, how others in the supply chain have handled the relevant restricted animals and meat (regulation 10(b)); b Remove offences of receiving such poultry meat at an undesignated place (regulation 7); c Remove offences of transporting restricted poultry meat to an undesignated place (regulation 9); and d Provide a new circular mark for placing on seropositive pig meat in an amendment to Schedule 3. The 2008 Regulations are amended to exclude certain persons from record keeping requirements (regulation 11).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source